If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Question for you science guys. On the 27th we will have "the longest blood moon", as you may have heard. In the country I live in it will be fully visible, at its maximum, for more than an hour. Fun. What strikes me is reading that, during a moon eclipse, the moon will look red because red is the light that scatters through our atmosphere and hits the moon, which otherwise would be in the earth shadow from the sun. Fine. B-but... doesn't it stand to reason then that the glow of the earth as seen from space should always be reddish/brown?? How could the NASA pictures show that nice blue layer around the earth, if the light that escapes the atmosphere is in fact in the red spectrum? (I know that the pictures are fake, only wondering if I am putting my finger on an obvious blunder on part of NASA, or is there another "scientific" explanation for the "blue marble" myth)

nonhocapito » July 26th, 2018, 8:49 am wrote:Question for you science guys. On the 27th we will have "the longest blood moon", as you may have heard. In the country I live in it will be fully visible, at its maximum, for more than an hour. Fun. What strikes me is reading that, during a moon eclipse, the moon will look red because red is the light that scatters through our atmosphere and hits the moon, which otherwise would be in the earth shadow from the sun. Fine. B-but... doesn't it stand to reason then that the glow of the earth as seen from space should always be reddish/brown?? How could the NASA pictures show that nice blue layer around the earth, if the light that escapes the atmosphere is in fact in the red spectrum? (I know that the pictures are fake, only wondering if I am putting my finger on an obvious blunder on part of NASA, or is there another "scientific" explanation for the "blue marble" myth)

I put your excellent point on Reddit nonhocapito, and couldn't help give some of my own reflections as well. I hope we all do this as much as we can muster. Even if we get mostly hostility back, we show people that these opinions exist and some may even be able to get their rational thinking operational again because of it.

nonhocapito » July 26th, 2018, 8:49 am wrote:Question for you science guys. On the 27th we will have "the longest blood moon", as you may have heard. In the country I live in it will be fully visible, at its maximum, for more than an hour. Fun. What strikes me is reading that, during a moon eclipse, the moon will look red because red is the light that scatters through our atmosphere and hits the moon, which otherwise would be in the earth shadow from the sun. Fine. B-but... doesn't it stand to reason then that the glow of the earth as seen from space should always be reddish/brown?? How could the NASA pictures show that nice blue layer around the earth, if the light that escapes the atmosphere is in fact in the red spectrum? (I know that the pictures are fake, only wondering if I am putting my finger on an obvious blunder on part of NASA, or is there another "scientific" explanation for the "blue marble" myth)

I put your excellent point on Reddit nonhocapito, and couldn't help give some of my own reflections as well. I hope we all do this as much as we can muster. Even if we get mostly hostility back, we show people that these opinions exist and some may even be able to get their rational thinking operational again because of it.

Why does the Earth not do this from pictures? Pretty much most of them - and especially the Blue Marble famous one - are taken when the sun is shining on it directly. The Earth isn't in anything's shadow so it's just lit up like normal.

This simply isn't true. This person is thinking at the full/composite pictures of earth, but there are now several videos and pictures from the alleged ISS that show earth at night, and when the angle includes the outer layer, it's always blue.

How can the outer layer of the atmosphere in the above picture look blue? The sun rays are going through the atmosphere and scattering in the direction of the observer on the ISS. The observer should be hit by brown/reddish light. Otherwise we would have a blue moon, not a blood moon.

(And anyway, it shouldn't matter whether the earth is in the shadow or not. If the atmosphere captures the blue spectrum, then how can you "see" the blue spectrum from out of it? Or am I misunderstanding the physics here?) (If I am not jerking myself off here, and of course I might just be, the repercussions are incredible. Mars, the "red planet" might then be a "blue" paradise like earth.)

Interesting, and we (i.e.; Earth) might be a "Red Dwarf" after all ... ?

That would go along with the "Stellar Metamorphosis" theory suggesting Earth is just a very very old "expired" star. But I don't wish to confuse the issue if that's not what you'd suggest in your logic.

Anyway, your point does seem valid: should atmosphere really appear blue "from space" just because it's blue over long distances within Earth's atmosphere?

Maybe a similar comparison could be made to photography within an ocean vs. photography of (above) the ocean. Within it, things may appear tinted aqua, green, blue, etc. but from above it may appear to be a much different hue based on reflections.

Another interesting factor is that our Sun technically "is green" when tested with spectrometers on Earth. Is this due to atmospheric changes to yellow light or is it really truly giving off a yellow-green within the range of our eyes' bandwidth?

According to this site, no — it really is green in the sense that its bright white visible light peaks green.

Found an article that talks about this and actually brings up the blood moon. I have no idea if this article makes sense though. All I can say is that when you dive red light indeed goes away at about 10 meters and downward.https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 705f76beca

Oh and just so no one misunderstands : I do not think any Earth from space photos are real. This is just about how qualified the guesses they've made are.

nonhocapito » July 26th, 2018, 2:49 am wrote:Question for you science guys. On the 27th we will have "the longest blood moon", as you may have heard. In the country I live in it will be fully visible, at its maximum, for more than an hour. Fun. What strikes me is reading that, during a moon eclipse, the moon will look red because red is the light that scatters through our atmosphere and hits the moon, which otherwise would be in the earth shadow from the sun. Fine. B-but... doesn't it stand to reason then that the glow of the earth as seen from space should always be reddish/brown?? How could the NASA pictures show that nice blue layer around the earth, if the light that escapes the atmosphere is in fact in the red spectrum? (I know that the pictures are fake, only wondering if I am putting my finger on an obvious blunder on part of NASA, or is there another "scientific" explanation for the "blue marble" myth)

Admittedly I am not known for scientific contributions to this forum. But please bear with me for a moment if you don’t mind.

To me, there is a difference between the color appearance/perception of (essentially) filtered (directly or reflected) light, and the color appearance of a “heavenly body” itself.

For example, the moon has the appearance of being white under ordinary circumstances, and appearing “blood red” on rare occasions.

So, it’s really just a matter of there being either something wide enough (but not too wide) directly in the shadow of the earth, or a theoretical vantage point of looking directly at the earth from X miles away and perceiving only the light that is passing through the atmosphere, as opposed to light reflecting directly off the surface of the earth.

To me it does make sense just from my own observations here on earth. If I go outside (some time mid-day) on a clear day and look directly up, well the sky is usually “blue” (or “cool”/high frequency using the Kelvin scale) in appearance.

But, when I look at a West Texas sunset on the horizon, of course it has a distinctly “warm” (or “orange”/low frequency using the Kelvin scale) appearance of color.

Nothing about the sky, the earth, or its sources of light changed between the two events (described above), except how much atmosphere the light has to pass through before reaching my vantage point.

Hopefully this post makes sense. I’m confident somebody here will (kindly) point out where my own analysis is flawed, if that is indeed that case.

And perhaps I’ll find time to flesh it out or clarify it if necessary.